the spawns of creative behavior in team sports: a ...€¦ · 2. institute of cognitive and...

REVIEWpublished: 26 August 2016

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01282

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 August 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 1282

Edited by:

Costantino Balestra,

Haute Ecole Paul-Henri Spaak,

Belgium

Reviewed by:

Andrew Abraham,

Leeds Beckett University, UK

Felix Lebed,

Kaye Academic College of Education,

Israel

*Correspondence:

Sara D. L. Santos

[email protected]

Specialty section:

This article was submitted to

Movement Science and Sport

Psychology,

a section of the journal

Frontiers in Psychology

Received: 19 April 2016

Accepted: 11 August 2016

Published: 26 August 2016

Citation:

Santos SDL, Memmert D, Sampaio J

and Leite N (2016) The Spawns of

Creative Behavior in Team Sports: A

Creativity Developmental Framework.

Front. Psychol. 7:1282.

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01282

The Spawns of Creative Behavior inTeam Sports: A CreativityDevelopmental FrameworkSara D. L. Santos 1*, Daniel Memmert 2, Jaime Sampaio 1 and Nuno Leite 1

1 Research Center in Sports Sciences, Health Sciences and Human Development, CreativeLab Research Community,

University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal, 2 Institute of Cognitive and Team/Racket Sport Research,

German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany

Developing creativity in team sports players is becoming an increasing focus in sports

sciences. The Creativity Developmental Framework is presented to provide an updated

science based background. This Framework describes five incremental creative stages

(beginner, explorer, illuminati, creator, and rise) and combines them into multidisciplinary

approaches embodied in creative assumptions. In the first training stages, the emphasis

is placed on the enrollment in diversification, deliberate play and physical literacy

approaches grounded in nonlinear pedagogies. These approaches allow more freedom

to discover different movement patterns increasing the likelihood of emerging novel,

adaptive and functional solutions. In the later stages, the progressive specialization in

sports and the differential learning commitment are extremely important to push the limits

of the creative progress at higher levels of performance by increasing the range of skills

configurations. Notwithstanding, during all developmental stages the teaching games

for understanding, a game-centered approach, linked with the constraints-led approach

play an important role to boost the tactical creative behavior. Both perspectives might

encourage players to explore all actions possibilities (improving divergent thinking) and

prevents the standardization in their actions. Overall, considering the aforementioned

practice conditions the Creativity Developmental Framework scrutinizes the main

directions that lead to a long-term improvement of the creative behavior in team sports.

Nevertheless, this framework should be seen as a work in progress to be later used as

the paramount reference in creativity training.

Keywords: exploratory behavior, deliberate play, physical literacy, nonlinear pedagogy, expertise

INTRODUCTION

The relationship among creativity development and sport participation remains unarticulated.Creative behavior is an extremely valued disposition in everyday life (Runco, 2014), as well asin sport performance (Memmert, 2015b). Sports scientists are recognizing the importance ofincreasing research focused in the development of creativity in sport. Nowadays, there are manyobstacles that restrain the creative potential, such as the lack of street sport, unadjusted training,mechanization of play, decrease of the game enjoyment and a narrow game knowledge. Moreover,the current sport systems are not aligned in order to supply these necessities. In fact, a rigid linearenvironment prevails and players are constantly overwhelmed by a lack of adaptability duringthe game. Although strategies can be planned and trained in advance, all dynamic interactions

http://www.frontiersin.org/Psychology

http://www.frontiersin.org/Psychology/editorialboard




http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01282

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01282&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2016-08-26


http://www.frontiersin.org

http://www.frontiersin.org/Psychology/archive

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01282

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01282/abstract

http://loop.frontiersin.org/people/125621/overview




Santos et al. Creativity Developmental Framework

have a level of uniqueness to them and may even be unexpected.The resolution of competitive situations will always vary whentaking into account the environmental influences. It is vitalthat the training environment reflects the real setting full ofunpredictability, thus it is necessary to support the players’creativity. Creative solutions are of crucial importance to sportsuccess, talent development and selection system and the keyis let it blossom during the early years. Indeed, there is greatpotential in creative moments, which can lead the team towardoutstanding performances. It appears that creative players makethe difference, as they bring the unforeseeable into the game anddisrupt the opponents (Memmert, 2013, 2015a).

Although there have been several empirically provenprinciples fostering tactical creativity driven by Memmert(2015a), little is known regarding the incorporation into agedepending training programs specifically designed to developand stimulate creative behavior in team sports within differentkinds of expertise and/or levels. In this sense, the current articleintegrates the latest research in sport science and creativity into adevelopmental framework, in an attempt to provide a commonground for fostering tactical creativity across childhood andthe junior age span. The Creativity Developmental Framework(CDF) highlights the idea that creativity depends on the masteryof thinking and sporting skills. For this reason, the creativebehavior relies on distinct emerging patterns according to theplayers’ progression in sport settings. Thus, it is mandatory toestablish a supportive and rewarding environment for creativeideas to appear. To ensure an optimal development of creativebehavior, the CDF mainly distinguishes five incremental trainingstages, that account for enhancing specific creative components:(a) Beginner stage (2–6 years); (b) Explorer stage (7–9 years);( c)Illuminati stage (10–12 years); (d) Creator stage (13–15 years);and (e) Rise stage (over 16 years). The presented stages aregeneral guidelines created as a possible continuum of creativityboost during the early ages, however neither all players willfollow this sequential path, adopting a more erratic, and distinctdevelopment.

Creativity development is a holistic process that underpinscomplex interactions among several domains (see Memmert,2015b). In fact, the appropriate enrichment context proposed byour CDF combines a variety of training approaches embodied increative assumptions: (a) practice pathway (from diversificationto specialization); (b) physical literacy (learning of fundamentalmovement and game skills); (c) nonlinear pedagogy whichunderpins, the constraints-led approach, teaching games forunderstanding and differential learning; and (e) creative thinking(divergent and convergent thinking debate) (see Figure 1).Individual and integrated contribution of these approachesassures the ideal conditions that nurture and support the long-term creative development process.

THE “THINKING CAP” PROCESS ISFERTILE GROUND FOR CREATIVITY

The field of creativity emerged as an outcome of the pioneeringworks of Joy Paul Guilford and Ellis Paul Torrance. The

last one is particularly responsible for the most recognizedand widely used assessments of creativity performance, suchas the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Cramond et al.,2005). Usually, the main topics of researchers’ interest are thedevelopment of effective ways to enhance creativity throughoptimizing the environment (Ma, 2006; Davies et al., 2013;Onarheim and Friis-Olivarius, 2013). Despite the lack of studies,the CDF considers crucial raise a creative thinker and a technical-tactical creative player, as complementary pairs. Nurture thinkingabilities allow to educate open-minded players who exploit allavailable creative possibilities in the field. That is, raising athinking trait predisposition to solve game problems in anunusual way.

Over time, a number of attempts have been made to explainthe main criteria of a creative product (Kaufman and Baer, 2012).Despite these efforts, the CDF embraces the most recognizeddescription which states that creative products must be centeredon two core elements: novelty and appropriateness of the action(Sternberg and Lubart, 1999). The CDF proposal underpins twowide classes of thinking processes: generate novelty (via divergentthinking abilities) and select novelty (via convergent thinkingabilities) (Fürst et al., 2016). Convergent actions are considereda process which generates a possible solution to a given problemand that provide criteria of effectiveness and novelty (Colzatoet al., 2013). This ability encompasses analytical processes andemphasizes the importance of critical thinking (Byernes andDunbar, 2014). During a football game, for example, the playersperceive the environmental information and select an action suchas shooting the ball (convergent thinking). Their critical thinkingwill be reflected when analyzing their action and searching forimprovements, such as the appropriateness of decision-makingand the shoot execution.

On the other hand, creative behavior also demands divergentabilities. Recent reports identify divergent abilities as a valid andreliable creativity predictor (Runco and Acar, 2012). Divergentthinking produces a variety of ideas and associations to aproblem and forms one major cognitive process in creativity(e.g., identifying a range of possibilities to solve a problem).Precisely, creative actions emerge by the players effort tomodify and produce different movement patterns generatingvariability (Runco and Acar, 2012; Furley and Memmert, 2015).Yet, some authors emphasize that creative abilities followdistinct patterns across development. While divergent abilitiessignificantly decrease when not stimulated, convergent abilitiesremain more stable throughout the player’s career (Alfonso-Benlliure et al., 2013). In fact, convergent thinking is extensivelyrequested during the child’s education. Most studies identifythat children’s creativity began to decline around age 6 anda creative slump further occurs at the fourth and sixth grade(Claxton et al., 2005; Kim, 2011). Nevertheless, this declinecan also be explained by the increase in actions’ intentionalityand the decrease of imagination throughout life (Duffy, 2006;Glaveanu, 2011). Undoubtedly, the imagination serves as aprecursor for creativity, as creativity uses imagination to unleashtheir potential. While imagination underpins things that areunreal, creativity focus on things that might be possible and neverexperienced before. Indeed, creativity makes the imagination






FIGURE 1 | The Creativity Developmental Framework structure supports the creative behavior in team sports. Representation of the Creativity

Developmental Framework structure: 1) Developmental creativity stages: (a) beginner; (b) explorer; (c) illuminati; (d) creator; (e) rise. (2) Tenets of the Creativity

Developmental Framework: (a) practice pathways; (b) physical literacy; (c) nonlinear pedagogy including teaching games for understanding and the constraints-led

approach; (d) creative thinking. 3) Creativity training components: (a) attempts, (b) efficacy, (c) versatility, (d) originality. 4) Tactical behavior principles: (a) fundamental

game principles, (b) situational game principles, (c) specific collective game principles.

feasible (Duffy, 2006). To prevent this slump, there should bea preponderance of tasks designed to develop the divergentabilities in all CDF stages as opposed to tasks that developconvergent abilities (see Figure 2). Nevertheless, this frameworkstates for an interrelationship between both types of creativethinking since quantity does not assure quality. Indeed, problemsare solved through a blend of convergent and divergentthinking.

COMPONENTS OF CREATIVE THINKING

To ensure the proper operationalization of creative behavior,the CDF embraces several creativity training components, whichhave been further adapted to the sports context (Memmertand Roth, 2007). These components allow to establish acreative game index: (a) efficacy, the ability to execute asmany effective movement actions as possible; (b) versatility,identified as the ability to produce non-standard actions suchas, execute different forms to pass or shoot; (c) originality,the ability to generate new and unique actions that othersare not likely to produce; and finally (d) attempts, recognizedas any effort to perform different actions even not-effective

movements, a concept added by this work. For novice players itis extremely important left their comfort zone and demonstrateas soon as possible, the initiative to perform new forms ofdribbling even if not successful (attempts). This preliminaryexploratory behavior will later enhance different forms ofdribbling (efficacy) and nurture the ability to adapt the dribblingin different ways (versatility), until the attainment of anunique dribbling action (originality). These components wereusually used for assessing the players’ creative performancethrough direct game observation, decreasing the weaknessof creative measurements normally associated to a lack ofecological validity (Piffer, 2012). In a practical view, the CDFadvocates that these creativity components should be embodiedin the training session’s environment, mainly in the learningof tactical behavior principles (fundamental game principles,situational game principles, and specific collective game principles,see Table 1). The stretching of these components providesnew insights about the key ingredients that seem to increasethe probability of developing creative players and should beconsidered as the basis of the CDF (see Figure 2). Additionally,it is really problematic for practitioners to grasp what is reallymeant by creativity in sports performance (Runco and Jaeger,2012).






FIGURE 2 | The connection between creative thinking and the learning of tactical behavior principles (fundamental, situational and specific collective

game principles) embodied in the creativity training stages.

During the framework stages arise two different types ofcreative expressions: P-creative (personal/psychological) andH-creative (historical) (Boden, 1996). The P-creative is internalto the player and leads to the development of individual problem-solving skills in the daily routine. Moreover, it is related withthe discovery of new techniques and solutions that allows tofoster the player’s own personal limitations (Boden, 1996). Inthis way, most of the players’ actions and decisions are notnovel in general, just novel to them. Therefore, this personalexpression is commonly performed from the beginner until therise stages. As expected, it is important to reinforce that theseinitial emerging solutions are not of an expert type and theyare not widely recognized in the main domain. By contrast, theH-creative is a behavior that no one ever executed before andcontributes to changes in history. This type of creative expressionis easier to recognize in sports and it is widely evidenced in theconcepts of creativity. However, it seems that in most cases ahigh level of expertise it is necessary, so this outcome it willappear more consistently since the rise stage. Note that, thesenovel actions should be considered as H-creativity even if theplayers repeats it continually, whereas in team sports context therepeated skill never happens exactly in the same environmentalconditions (Boden, 1996). The environment is unpredictableand its influence is always dependent on the player’s perceptionand past experiences. Ordinarily, the H-creative behavior is P-creative too. In this way, the learning process should invitethe players to explore instead of promotes a passive copyingprocess. This assumption can be captured by the nonlinearpedagogy assumptions. Note that the path from P-creativityto H-creativity is not predetermined. Neither of these typesof creativity occurs in timely and ordered stages (Hristovskiet al., 2012), considering that the development of all playersis an individualized bio-psycho-social process (see Abrahamet al., 2014). In this sense, the coach needs to recognize theplayers’ motivations in order to facilitate their developmentand understand that some players will face more difficulties insuch creative environments. For instance, Collins et al. (2016)pointed out, how some experiences during the sport pathdiscriminate their level of performance. As so, it is important forcoaches to be aware of players’ readiness to work in a creativeenvironment.

Ordinarily, the creativity concept focus in the final outcomeof a creative player (H-creativity) but before the attainment ofthis status occurred a developmental process (P-creativity), whichis not recognized in the theoretical background. Therefore, theCDF presents a whole new concept. In the first years, the novicecreative player must be comfortable to discover and reorganizenew personal solutions, toward a continuously challenge oftheir self-adaptation ability. Concomitantly, should be able tomove and attune outside the box under the guidance of sportenvironment and to solve a specific game problem in a novel,feasible, unexpected and original way by starting a single act orflowing in a collective action contributing to team success. AH-creativity is extensible described in Hopsicker (2011, p. 114),which points out: the exceptional innovator, the highly creativeplayers, the performer of novel moves and tactics, and the producerof imaginative strategies that tend toward competitive success byperceives and anticipates challenging situations. And also, possessesricher positional and practical knowledge of his specific sportingactivity.

Playing in a team sport does not mean that the players shouldgive up on their individual initiative. In fact, the game qualityincreases as higher the player individual contribution to the teamcollective behavior. Likewise, the collective strategy should alsohave space for individual creativity. That is, each player shouldhave both the responsibility and liberty inside the team gamemodel that allows to develop and express his potential creative.While a rich description of creative behavior can be stated, thereis still a lack of detailed information about understanding thedevelopmental path that triggers this state.

THE MATURATION OF WORLD CLASSSKILLS

The debate about the type and the amount of practice thatplayers should invest in across their sport careers is justbeginning (Collins and MacNamara, 2011; Moesch et al., 2011;Lloyd et al., 2015; Hornig et al., 2016; Rees et al., 2016)and is really controversial. Currently, two proposed pathwaysin the development of sport expertise prevails: diversificationand specialization. These pathways are mainly differentiated






TABLE 1 | Description of the tactical behavior principles used to classify the tactical game complexity in team sports (adapted from Memmert and

Harvey, 2010; Mitchell et al., 2013).

Principles Tactical Behavior Description

Fundamental Game Principles Attack Dribbling attempts Ability to express comfortably with the ball, by being able to control, and dribble the

opponents in tight spaces.

Support and orienting Support the player in possession taking an optimal position on the playing field at right

time (low risk of ball losing) and in offensive positions (movements toward opponents

target direction).

Tacking ball near goal Transport the ball together with team mates to a finishing space.

Attacking the goal Moving and transport the ball with teammates into spaces between and behind the

defenders in order to execute the finishing action.

Playing together Pass the ball to the partners quickly and in a suitable manner to the situation.

Achieving advantage Look for spaces in order to create numerical and positional offensive advantage.

Using gaps Identifying the optimal gaps to make spatial decisions to accomplish tactical tasks or

match situations.

Defense Defending attacking players Denying and blocking the offensive players’ movements.

Defending the goal Collective movements of defenders to prevent/stop a shot.

Gain the ball Defensive actions performed by the defenders to gain the ball (e.g., interception, tackle,

block, cause errors such as offside).

Situational Game Principles Attack Explore and improvise

offensive movements

Attempts to create and use novel dribbles and moves to overcome an opponent.

Maintaining the ball

possession

Ability to maintain the ball possession, by passing the ball quickly and to a free-standing

team mate allowing the ball flow without the defenders gain their possession.

Create and use space Moving the ball into attacking /scoring positions using pitch width /length to stay away

from the defenders.

Finalization Team offensive actions that end with the shot to the opponent’s target.

Defense Limiting attacking options Preventing scoring throw the limitation of attacking options (marking key players;

orienting the opposite team to the sides of the field).

Defending space Covering space as a defensive unit.

Applying pressure Defenders collective movements toward the opponent with the ball to decrease the

time and space to decide.

Specific Collective Game Principles Position specific behavior Players’ tactical mission according to each specific position (e.g., marking the forward

by the central defender).

Anticipation skills Anticipate the opponent’s actions by selecting and executing the appropriate answer.

Tactical awareness Players’ ability to recognize opportunities, know what to do and make

fast/advantageous decisions.

Team tactical behavior Team interpersonal coordination behavior according to the environment and opponents

changes.

Game model Fulfill general guidelines that guide the team’s players’ performance.

in terms of their early structured process. On the one hand,the specialization is associated to structured activities typifiedby an early involvement in a single sport (between 5 or6 years of age) and coupled with high amounts of specifictraining—deliberate practice (Ericsson, 2014; Hambrick et al.,2014). On the other hand, diversification includes an earlyinvolvement in several sports and it is also associated to lowstructured activities—deliberate play (Leite et al., 2009; Côtéand Vierimaa, 2014; Côté and Ericsson, 2015). Notwithstanding,the concepts of specialization and deliberate practice, as well asdiversification and deliberate play should not be considered asbeing synonymous. This common misinterpretation leads to anarrow view, which does not allow to exploit the potential of apossible coexistence between the previous concepts (Coutinho

et al., 2016). Therefore, in the rise stage, the players can specializeonly in the main sport and being exposed to a nonlinear trainingmethod.

In this sense, the CDF recognizes that both sport pathwaysare not antithesis but they can coexist since they correspondto distinct moments of talent development. Moreover, theframework states that a continuum of practice activities rangingfrom unstructured settings, which normally guides towarddivergent abilities, should precede the highly structured settings,focusing on the convergent abilities. This sequence may have animportant role in the boost of creative behavior (see Figure 3).

Despite several statements referring that pursuit of aspecialized pathway drains players’ creativity, the expertise ina structured domain in later stages is an essential condition to






FIGURE 3 | The type of practice pathway and physical literacy structure embodied in creativity training stages.

be truly creative. It seems that outstanding behaviors can onlybe displayed if players master the field (Ericsson and Lehmann,1999). Such preparation is an essential requirement to attainthe elite status and compete at the highest level. In later stages,specialization in one sport is mandatory providing a qualitativejump to push the limits of the creative progress. However, is therean optimal stage or time to specialize in team sports? Definitely,it is hard to address this issue but several Cotê studies (Côtéet al., 2009; Côté and Vierimaa, 2014) proposed the age of 16 as asuitable time (e.g., rise stage).

Additionally, expert players possess the ability to successfullycombine their motor and perceptual functions during the gameto outplay the opponents (Abernethy et al., 2005; Broadbent et al.,2015; MacNamara and Collins, 2015). Recently, research hasestablished a positive relationship between creative behavior andparticular aspects of these perceptual skills, such as the breadthof attention (Memmert, 2011). Usually, the breadth of attentionis the term used to refer to the number and range of stimuli that aplayer is able to attune at any moment (Memmert, 2009). Theplayers need a wide breadth of attention in order to generatetactical behavior and seek for different solutions (Memmert andFurley, 2007). In fact, the CDF makes it possible to associatedifferent stimuli with each other increasing the potential todisplay novel game solutions (Kreitz et al., 2015; Memmert,2015b). In a specialization phase, the lack of fundamentalprinciples (technical and tactical) affect their ability to select therelevant environmental information decreasing the emergenceof a highly adaptive behavior. Ericsson and Lehmann (1999, p.76), summarized the connection among expertise and creativityby concluding that: “...individuals have not been able to makegenerally recognized creative contributions to a domain unlessthey had mastered the relevant knowledge and skills in the courseof a long preparatory period.” In order to achieve that level ofproficiency, players must accumulate a large amount of hours ofpractice. In early stages, those hours can be accumulated in non-specific activities, suggesting a functional role in the developmentof expertise (Abernethy et al., 2005; Leite and Sampaio, 2010;MacNamara and Collins, 2015). In addition to later specializationas a potential contributor for H-creativity development, the CDFsuggests that diversification could also be a crucial element.

The concept of early diversification prior to a later restraining,typically associated to specialization, is regarded as mandatoryto enhance divergent thinking (Memmert and Roth, 2007).The exposure in a variety of sport/game contexts providesinvaluable experiences and stimulus for players, and enables

them to adapt to unpredictable situations in a range of differentenvironments (Memmert, 2006). Research has demonstratedthe effectiveness of an early diversification approach whileconsidering the unpredictable and demanding environment ofteam sports (Memmert and Harvey, 2010). Within the diversityof sport experiences, this developmental progression should alsoinclude the participation in naive free-play and deliberate playactivities (Côté and Vierimaa, 2014). In fact, a growing bodyof research has found a correlation between play activities andcreativity development (Memmert, 2011).

Nevertheless, the CDF tried to overcome a few gaps relatedwith literature concepts. Generally, deliberate play is presented inliterature as playing sport games informally which are extremelyplayfulness activities and promotes an incredibly pleasure,performed with rules adapted from adult norms that are set-upand monitored by children themselves in their free time (i.e.,neighborhood pickup games and street football and basketball)(Côté et al., 2003; Hendry and Hoges, 2013). Considering theroots of the term deliberate it is preferred to use in this frameworkthe term naive free-play for the previous concept. Nonetheless,it redirects the term deliberate play to an activity that is highlyenjoyable designed to keep players motivated. However, it isoriented with a minor goal of improving athletes’ overall sportskills and is slightly guided by adults. In terms of structure,deliberate play activities are usually more structured than naivefree-play but less structured than formally organized activitiessuch as deliberate practice. Still, during the beginner and explorerstage, the naive and deliberate play experiences assure theappropriate evolvement emerging the first sparks of a problem-solver player (P-creativity type) (Memmert, 2013).

Creativity is facilitated by play activities, which providefreedom to experiment with different movements and tacticvariations and gives children the opportunity to discover,create and innovate their actions (Greco et al., 2010; Bowerset al., 2014; Pesce et al., 2016). This type of practice mightencourage the child’s ability to think divergently and convergently(Greco et al., 2010). To support these statements, researchfocused on the developmental path predictors of creative playersshowed an association between the time spent in deliberateplay activities and the increase of creativity in team sports(Memmert et al., 2010). Also, a recent study examined if theamount of time spent in two different sport settings (structuredvs. unstructured) during childhood has a later influence ingeneral creative thinking. According to this analysis, time spentin unstructured sport activities was positively related to the






achievement of creative thinking in adulthood (Bowers et al.,2014). Likewise, it is also recognized that early participationin highly enjoyable activities such as deliberate play builds asport solid foundation with a long-term effect on young players’intrinsic motivation (Ford et al., 2009). The social learningtheory supports the previous statements (Bandura, 1969), itsees individual differences in behavior as resulting from earlylearning experiences. According to this theory the children’sfirst experiences in sports will later shape sporting behavior andthe type of commitment. Thus, coaches should be aware thatmust provide a plenty of positive experiences during the earlyyears. These challenging and pleasant environments providethe optimal conditions to nurture the children to continuetheir journey surrounding the fundamental abilities to improvetheir physical literacy. Indeed, creativity and expertise researchhave not been discussed in parallel. Despite the clear evidenceabout the benefits of the unstructured activities in creativity, themagnitude of the effect of joining them with more structuredpractices in later stages it is still unclear.

PHYSICAL LITERACY

In the last 10 years evidence has grown regarding the importanceof physical literacy (see Giblin et al., 2014; Macnamaraet al., 2015). The concept describes a holistic engagementthat encompasses the ability of an individual to use cognitiveprocesses to help children move with confidence in a rangeof novel and challenging environments (see Longmuir et al.,2015). Mainly, at the beginner and explorer stages, childrenshould be encouraged to engage with low-structure activities thatpromote a substantial improvement of physical literacy (Lloydet al., 2015). In sports setting, physical literacy is often associatedwith fundamental movement skills, which include the masteryof locomotive (running, skipping, and hopping), manipulativeor object control (catching, throwing, grasping, and striking),and stabilizing skills (balance, rotation, bracing, and twisting)(Lubans et al., 2010; Lai et al., 2014; Jaakkola et al., 2016).However, physical literacy also includes the fundamental gameskills, in which children learn specific sport skills, such as howto kick the ball without an interception of the opposing team.Literate players build up easily a sustained skill background thatallow them to be more creative.

Research typically emphasize the transfer hypothesis,suggesting that children should acquire fundamental movementskills before learning the related fundamental game skills (seeGallahue et al., 2011). For example, young children should befirst taught throwing patterns in ways that are not sport specificbefore undertaking the learning of specific skills such as thebasketball chess pass or handball shoulder pass. Otherwise,children may encounter more difficulties when learning complexsports skills, which may influence the pursuit of sport excellence.The breach of this principle seems to lead to a proficiency barrier,which could affect the progression into complex sports-specificskills being dependent on the prior foundation of fundamentalmovement skills (Seefeldt, 1980; Gallahue and Donnelly, 2007;Kalaja et al., 2011; Bryant et al., 2013). Moreover, the previously

assumptions are slowly fading away, and the CDF suggests thatthis standpoint surrounding fundamental movement skills mightneglect the central tenets of physical literacy concept (Whitehead,2010). This framework argues that the essential embodied natureof movement learning can only be understood in relation tothe environment and cannot be interpreted solely as developingfundamental movement skills, which is a very diluted andrestricted statement. The postulates of the CDF emphasizesthe complementarity of fundamental movement skills andfundamental game skills (Ford et al., 2011; Smith, 2014), bothwith equal value in all stages contributing to promote versatilityand competence to foster “outside the box” thinking and acting.

Considering that physical literacy includes an ability to usecognitive processes, the technique should not be taught separatelyfrom tactics (Smith, 2014). To reach an even more effectiveperformance, the perceptual and decision-making capacities(e.g., the perception of teammate’s spatial distribution) and inter-limb coordination (e.g., shoot as we run) will be needed. In fact,passing the ball in a pre-planned way is totally different frompassing the ball in response to positioning of teammates andopponents in the game. While children learning fundamentalgame skills, the appropriate technique will emerge as naturalprocess of adaptive play. It can be argued that learning certainmovement skills can only become meaningful when they areapplied in ecological sport settings (Smith, 2014). During thebeginner and explorer stage, the physical literacy training providesthe proper environment for learning tactical principles, mainlythe fundamental game principles (dribbling attempts, supportand orienting, taking ball near the goal and attacking the goal,playing together, achieving advantage, using gaps, defendingattacking players, defending the goal, and gain the ball). Theseprinciples are extensively described in the CDF (Memmert andHarvey, 2010; Mitchell et al., 2013), which nurture furtherexcitement associated with playing team sports (see Table 1).

Indeed, the physical literacy training is considered to be thebuilding block of sport performance and if players do not excelin the basics, they will hardly display creative behaviors (Ennis,2015). While several theoretical developmental models suggestthat the trainability of fundamental skills decreases after sevenyears of age, other studies extend this window at least untiltwelve years (illuminati stage) (see Ford et al., 2011). Despite thelack of studies, the framework also stresses a smaller spectrumduring the creator and rise stages since physical literacy isconceptualized as a journey throughout life span (see Figure 3).Physical literacy training should be maintained in the later stagesbut with different extents. However, the intervention strategies ina long-term preparation still remain unanswered (Longmuir andTremblay, 2016).

THE BREAKTHROUGH OF ECOLOGICALCONSTRAINTS

Evidence from the Dynamical Systems Theory are in line withCDF assumptions. Learning theories within the dynamicalsystems perspective allow to respond to the challengesof acquiring functional movement behaviors in dynamic






environments encountered in all sports (Edwards, 2010).Understanding how movement coordination emerges and itsacquisition is a central issue. Coordination arises as manysystem degrees of freedom (i.e., movement possibilities) arecontinuously organized taking into account the interactionbetween learner, the task and environment (Chow et al.,2015). A three stage model was proposed to understandinghow movement system degrees of freedom are continuouslyevolving (Bernstein, 1967; Newell, 1985). In the novice stageof learning the body is kept rigid and inflexible with restrictedmovements. Considering that the degrees of freedom are limitedthe coordination solutions are also reduced. Over the course oflearning, the advanced stage of learning is related with a releasingof the degrees of freedom toward more functional, fluid, andsmoothly coordinated movements. This stage is characterizedby the freeing of movement possibilities called synergies asthe individual learn how to control and coordinate complexmovements. Gradually, through this exploratory process, thelearners’ moves into the expert stage of learning marked bythe perception of the environment interaction. The learner isable to reorganize the degrees of freedom in order to reach themost efficient and flexible movement patterns. The informationavailable in the performance environment is crucial in shapinghow learners reorganize their individual motor system degreesof freedom (see Chow et al., 2015). The manipulation of tasksconstraints can shape the learner’s degrees of freedom, since thechanges in movement patterns leads to a transition from onestable state of motor organization toward another (Edwards,2010). In this sense, acquisition of coordination is an ongoingprocess. Still, this approach may have a distinct impact ondifferent learners, as the acquisition of movement coordinationis not a linear process.

Due to the dynamism and nature of complexity of teamsports, the CDF structure was grounded in nonlinearity (Davidset al., 2003; Harbourne and Stergiou, 2009; Chow et al., 2011;Vilar et al., 2012; Lebed and Bar-Eli, 2013; Gordon, 2014)from the beginner until the rise stage (see Figure 4). Chowand colleagues proposed the term of Nonlinear Pedagogy, aconstraints-led approach (Chow et al., 2007). Nonlinearity isthe basis of multistability, which is defined as the existence ofmore than one solution to a goal and is regarded as a crucialelement for the divergent training upgrading (Hristovski et al.,2011; Memmert, 2015b). Usually, the Nonlinear Pedagogy isputted in practice through the constraints-led approach whichunderpins the designed principles emanating from an ecologicaldynamics standpoint and provides a fundamental theoreticalimpetus for practitioners to thrive the creative tactical behavior:

(a) manipulation of constraints; (b) functional variability; (c)attentional focus (d) representativeness, and (e) the maintenanceof pertinent information-movement couplings (Chow, 2013;Chow et al., 2015). Firstly, the role of constraints has been putforth as a central tenet encouraging the emergence of functionalmovement solutions within game situations (Lee et al., 2014).Typically, task constraints can be readily manipulated to boostthe discovery and exploration movement solutions (Hristovskiet al., 2011). The associated variability in task performanceinspires players to adapt and unlock their creative potential.Indeed, the noise provided by these challenging environmentspromote the exploratory behavior (Schollhörn et al., 2009) andplayers will be channeled to functional and versatile connectionsthat may lead them to creative behaviors. The CDF reasons thatthe exploratory behavior is a central tenet and a precondition ofplayer’s creative development that should persist until the risestage with different magnitudes. Moreover, giving opportunitiesto young players to explore their boundaries is fundamental,mainly in explorer and illuminati stages, making them moreadaptive without being afraid to attempt and risk-taking incompetitive situations. Players need the opportunity to searchfor their own task solutions instead of applying standardizedresponses. Therefore, the use of representative environmenttraining situations seems to be the way in which playersbecome more proficient at perceiving environment cues andconstant changes in game situations. In this sense, the useof more ecological training situations allow players to attunerelevant sources of information based on information-movementcoupling. Passing in football, for example, should be developedwith an opponent attempting to intercept the ball (performunder defensive pressure instead of passive or without defenders)and under variable task constraints (game rules, space andequipment change). Moreover, a constraints-led perspective canbe used to sustain the design of training tasks across thelearning styles. Concepts derived from the Mosston’s Spectrumof Teaching Styles (Moston and Ashworth, 1990) reinforcethe physical literacy and nonlinear previous statements. Thistheory comprises a spectrum moving from teacher-centered tostudent-centered styles. The further players-centered styles ofthe spectrum, are the most suitable for developing creativeplayers (problem solving and creativity styles) (Sicilia-Camachoand Brown, 2008). In the field of sports, the Teaching Gamesfor Understanding (TGfU), as a game-centered pedagogy fitsperfectly with these problem solver styles.

Over the last twenty-years, research on popular pedagogicalapproaches such as the TGfU has been increasing in scientificliterature (Butler, 2014). The focus of TGfU, which incorporates

FIGURE 4 | The nonlinear pedagogy assumptions embodied in the creativity training stages.






key aspects of Nonlinear Pedagogy principles, is to provideexperiences centered in technical and tactical skills throughmodified game contexts (Tan et al., 2012; Butler, 2014; Harveyand Jarrett, 2014). Additionally, it favors the game understanding(e.g., critical-thinking and problem solving skills), since technicaland tactical skills are developed simultaneously, clearly linkedwith the physical literacy’s previous standpoints. Farther, theTGfU approach seems to be a suitable way to enhance physicalliteracy (Mandigo and Corlett, 2010). The framework considersthese modified games applied in ecological situations, thefingerprint of the TGfU approach and the main driver forthe tactical creative behavior (Memmert and Harvey, 2010).Nevertheless, the main critic pointed out to the TGfU approachis related with the progressive loss of the coaches’ responsibilityby simply allowing players to play games without any criteria.Indeed, designing representative practice tasks can be more timeconsuming and demanding for coaches (Memmert et al., 2015;Renshaw et al., 2015).

In order to promote tactical creativity and to betterunderstand how to manipulate the task constraints, theTGfU model embraces four key pedagogical principles stronglysupported by core principles of nonlinearity: sampling,modification-exaggeration, modification-representation, andtactical complexity level (see Tan et al., 2012; Chow et al., 2015),these are usually implemented in Small-Sided Games (Hill-Haaset al., 2011; Travassos et al., 2012; Halouani et al., 2014). Gameswith less tactical complexity should be taught first, during theexplorer and illuminati stages, to ensure that novice playersunderstand the game they play. It is important to consider thatin early stages the constraints should be relaxed to enhance theexploratory behavior that consequently leads to a better efficacyand versatility of players actions (Hristovski et al., 2011). Forthese reasons, the CDF sustains that it is reasonable to startwith simple game formats before raising tactical complexity, increator and rise stages, by introducing Small-Sided Games withhigher collective demands (Tan et al., 2012). In turn, as the gameskills are mastered, the tactical complexity should be increasedtoward a proper adaptive response (Davids et al., 2013). Theimportance of high task complexity has been widely explored inthe organizational field and it seems that creative people, with acertain level of expertise, tend to be attracted to complexity (Chaeet al., 2015). To attend this issue, the CDF will use different levelsof game complexity which gradually increase the tactical creativebehavior adapted from previous works of Memmert and Harvey(2010), Mitchell et al. (2013) (see Table 1). Considering thedecision-making models, in the nonlinear pedagogy approachpredominates a naturalistic decision making, which result ina deeper understanding of the team member’s contributionsand the role of the environment in specific situations. This willenhance the collective synchrony toward a more effective play,mainly during complex situations (Macquet, 2009; Richardset al., 2012).

The CDF links the constraints-led (learner-environment)and TGfU (learner-centered) approaches in order to sustainthe creativity development in team sports. Despite both usingthe core principles of nonlinear pedagogy as a theoreticalbackground, it is important to make clear that they are

slightly different (see Renshaw et al., 2015). These differencesare harmoniously aligned allowing to stablish new conceptualinsights. The key similarities include: (a) their holistic perspectiveof the learner; (b) consider the individual differences of thelearner; (c) coach act as a facilitator to guide players’ discovery;and (d) learning tasks design are sustained on the common ideasof representativeness (Renshaw et al., 2015). This frameworkalso intends to provide clarification for sport stakeholders onthe nature of the synergies that emerge within the dissimilaritiesbetween the two approaches. According to the framework theTGfU vision and proposals are of particular value until theilluminate stage. Significant increase of tactical creativity wereconfirmed in children among 7–10 years of age (Memmert,2011), possibly indicating the optimal window of trainability. Infact, the TGfU is a more educational related approach designedfor children to understand the generic tactical concepts of teamsports and to capture a passion for playing games, clearlylinked with previous standpoints of diversification and physicalliteracy. Likewise, the use of questioning as a main pedagogicaltool toward a more critical thinking player. It seems that thisapproach captures these features better than the constraints-ledapproach, which consist in an advantage in supporting a wide-range creativity environment in early stages. Instead, the aimof the constraints-led approach is to reach the task goal takinginto consideration the several possible ways of attaining the finaloutcome. This approach is more geared to performance andsupports players to become autonomous of coaches’ feedback andinstructions, thus more indicated from the middle stages of theframework (from illuminati stage).

Further, as previously referred the TGfU sustains a simple tocomplex progression and during the early stages could simplifyand boost the players learning. At this point, both approachesare distinct since constraints-led stages are not sequential (Chowet al., 2007). However, in later stages, given the players alreadyhave a sustained sport background this nonlinear process iscrucial in the exploratory behavior. On the other hand, the TGfUapproach also advocates taking students out of games to developskills (Butler, 2014). In this point, nonlinear minor adjustmentsare necessary. Thus, to address this issue, the frameworkreinforces that a few TGfU designs based on the principlesof nonlinearity would possibly lead to the creation of moreeffective games. For example, creating 1vs1 or 2vs1 situationsinstead of removing the player from the game environment. Inmiddle and later stages (creator and rise stages), the constraints-led approach should prevail in its fullness. Note that there areminor differences among the two approaches that have notbeen addressed, since they have a trivial contribution to theframework.

DIFFERENTIAL LEARNING

Building on current nonlinear pedagogies, differential learningexplores the fluctuations, and adaptive mechanisms inperception-action coupling through performing complexmovements without repetitions and adding permanent stochasticperturbations in tasks (Schollhörn et al., 2009; Schöllhorn et al.,






2012). Specifically, this approach proposes infinite variationsin technique movement to make the player ready to deal withdisturbances in competitive environments (Frank et al., 2008;Schöllhorn et al., 2012). According to the current standpointthe variation and adaptability provided by the combination ofdifferent motor patterns allow players to better reorganize theknowledgeable skills and learn new patterns to produce a varietyof novel motion configurations. In this sense, the players shouldbe challenged in unfamiliar environments with maximal patternvariations of the initial situation, for example, the players areinstructed to perform movement errors instead of avoiding them(e.g. kick a ball with arms raised) (Schöllhorn et al., 2006). In fact,differential learning provides a highly improvisation demand,one of the most complex forms of creative behavior. Researchrefers that improvisation is a learnable skill that requires aconsiderable amount of training (Beaty, 2015). Besides, theframework argues that training for improvisation is associatedwith a releasing effect, appreciated in creative behavior (Sawyer,2000; Fink and Woschnjak, 2011; Kleinmintz et al., 2014).Thereby, the CDF suggests that the differential learning volumeshould have a significant increase starting at the illuminati stageand should attain their peak of prominence in the rise stage(see Figure 4). Differential learning should be considered withcaution when it is used with young players, it seems that toomuch noise can slow the learning process. Nevertheless, thesport stakeholders should be aware of the differential learningapplicability. Thus, this approach should be progressivelyintroduced as the players develop their sporting fundamentals.In the illuminati and rise stages the players have already gatheredan optimized technical-tactical and perceptual background aswell as a greater game purposiveness.

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS

To ensure a proper creative developmental process, the firstdevelopmental stages should be grounded on intrinsicallymotivating and low structured experiences, such as theinvolvement in deliberate play activities instead of highcontrolled activities. However, the transitioning fromdiversification (where prevails P-creativity type) to specialization(possibly an H-creativity type) should gradually occur atappropriate developmental times and players need to be correctlyguided during this continuous change of sport demands. Thecentral tenets of diversified practice leads to an enrichment of thephysical literacy. The mastery of several motor and game skillsduring the beginner and explorer stages, guides players to moveoutside the box, to think critically and improve their breadth ofattention to conveying knowledge to make creative connectionsamong several contexts. Furthermore, the Framework sustainsthat creativity can only be requested if the environment requestcreativity. For this reason, players should be prepared for thenext unpredictable action, which will imply the permanentchallenge of adaption mechanisms. The ultimate achievement oftactical creative behavior is grounded in the nonlinear pedagogy,which is an important way to facilitate the emergence of noveland functional solutions through adaptive movement patterns.

The manipulation of tasks constraints it is extremely importantto promote randomness in player’s actions. Moreover, thisdynamical changes develops exploratory behavior that encourageplayers to discover new action possibilities (improving divergentthinking). In fact, the environmental information in team sportschanges instantaneously, therefore it is extremely importantfor the players to develop their ability to attune the optimalaffordances under representative learning environments.

Additionally, the constraints-led approach and TGfU isa meaningful tool for players to perceive the affordancesduring the game performance. Not devaluating the role ofcognitive explanations, the CDF stresses the relationship betweenperception and action in the movement systems, which clarifyhow the learning occurs. Coordination emerges as learnersadapt their movement behaviors to the constraints. In thissense, the creativity training process should focus on simulatedversions of major games using small-sided games sustainedin several types of constraints. This progression improvesthe tactical behavior learning, which must be grounded increativity training components (attempts, efficacy, versatility, andoriginality). In later stages, the tactical creative behavior alsoneeds to be supported by complex patterns skills acquisitionthrough the differential learning approach and with a specializedcommitment. These approaches makes the players more ableto adapt against environment disturbances and preparing themto perform novel configurations during the game. Thus, theCDF stresses that players should be free to explore thepossibilities unhindered and create without limits throughout allthe developmental stages.

Overall, the CDF scrutinizes the key directions that lead toa sustainable development of the creative behavior accordingto age and expertise in team sports (see Table 2). In addition,this article might act as a starting point to understand creativitytraining, which should be gradually implemented in sportsstructures and physical education lessons. It was also highlightedthe unpredictable environment in which team sports occur andthe implications for the design of creativity long-term programs.During the developmental stages, the players will expressdifferent types of creativity (from P-creativity to H-creativity) orthey even may never display the H-creativity, but certainly inthe end they will be more adaptive and functional. As previouslymentioned, the development of all players is an individualizedbio-psycho-social process. Thus, coaches should not to wait untilthe complete skill development, otherwise they need to recognizeand accept the limits in cognitive and motor maturity that mayrestrain the creative performance. Coaches should inspire playersthrough shaping their environment. Nevertheless, we can besure that we are on track if players feel comfortable to thinkdifferently without fear of failure, or of take risks, explore newbehaviors and be innovative during the game. In this regard,the main concern of the CDF is how it will be understood andapplied by coaches, teachers and practitioners. Considering thatthere is a substantial individual variation in creative developmentthe presented stages are general guidelines, so they may not besequential. During the course of all stages, many external factors,which are not mentioned interact and can interfere with theprocess. Still, the framework assumes that all players eventually






TABLE 2 | Creativity stages of the Creativity Developmental Framework in team sports.

Creative Stages of the Creativity Developmental Framework in Team Sports

Beginner (2–6 yrs) Exploratory (7–9 yrs) Illuminati (10–12 yrs) Creator (13–15 yrs) Rise (+16 yrs)

The sparks of confidence and

competence to move...

Time to explore and pursue

new solutions!

Moving and attuning outside

the box...

The sports environment guides

the problem solver actions...

All prepared, to the collective

behavior spawns!

PRACTICE PATHWAY

- Naïve-Free play in a wide

range of diversified contexts.

- Practice several sports

embodied in deliberate play

activities.

- Keep practice and explore

several sports skills.

- Narrow gradually the

diversified structured practice

exposure.

- Specialization in one or two

sports with a nonlinear

commitment.

PHYSICAL LITERACY

- Acquiring confidence and

competence to move

through learning

fundamental movements

and game skills.

- Continuous improvement of

fundamental movements

and game skills.

- Mastery of the fundamental

movements and game skills.

- Performing complex

movement skills and

perceived the game

affordances.

- Development of the creative

tactical behavior.

NONLINEAR PEDAGOGY

- The first experiences in

invasion play-type activities.

This stage is characterized

by the restricted degrees of

freedom (novice stage of

learning).

- Embodied in representative

learning contexts and in

simpler modified-games

forms which increase the

technical background.

Player moves from a novice

to advanced stage of

learning with a progressive

releasing of the degrees of

freedom.


learning contexts with

moderate modified-games

forms, that increase the

technical and tactical

repertoire. More functional,

fluid and smoothly

coordinated movements.


and differential learning

contexts with complex

modified-game forms, toward

the increase of technical and

tactical performance. Player

learn how to control and

coordinate complex

movements.


learning with a special focus

on differential contexts and

highly complex

modified-game forms that

mostly increase the tactical

awareness and technical

configurations. Nurturing the

environment interactions

(expert stage of learning).

-TACTICAL BEHAVIOR PRINCIPLES

- Fundamental game

principles learning.

- Improvement of the

fundamental game

principles.

- Introduce situational game

principles training.

- Situational game principles

mastery.

- Moving to the specific

collective game principles

knowledge.

CREATIVE THINKING

- Divergent thinking

development through

enhancing the player’s

curiosity traits.

- Divergent thinking

development through

fostering the player’s

exploratory technical-tactical

behaviors. The P-creativity

prevails.

- Divergent thinking improvement through stretching the

player’s exploratory technical-tactical behaviors. The

P-creativity prevails however, it is possible to occur the

H-creativity type.

- Divergent thinking mastery

through high player’s

improvisation behavior. The

possibility of occurring

H-creativity behaviors

gradually increases.

- CREATIVITY COMPONENTS

- Encourages the player’s

attempts.

- Focus on the player’s

actions efficacy, without

discouraging their different

attempts in all stages.

- Focus mainly on the efficacy

and versatility of players

actions without discouraging

their different attempts.

- Focus on efficacy, versatility

and originality of player’s

actions.

- Focus mainly in efficacy,

versatility and originality of

players’ performance.

will follow the same sequential pathway from beginner to risestages and this assumption is not always fulfilled. Moreover, theframework only provide the overall early guidelines that shouldbe followed in the clubs or schools, but the creative processcontinues beyond the rise stage. While the players’ expertiseincrease, the likelihood of H-creativity appearance is higherand often occurs after the rise stage. In this sense, it would benecessary to incorporate later stages. However, considering thedifferent purposes and structures of professional sports, couldbe extremely difficult to uniform the guidelines to be followed.Thus, the current theoretical framework should be consideredas a preliminary guideline to support the coaches and teachers’understanding of creativity development issues in early stages,which is urgently required. Having this assumption in mind, itwas suggested that sports stakeholders should support and adapt

their training programs to embrace the players’ creativity. Finally,this theoretical framework should be considered as a work inprogress that offers a substantial potential for enhancing creativebehavior.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

DM developed a red line for the developmental frameworkwith the important aspect age, ensuring that the ideas presentedin manuscript were appropriately investigated and articulatedwith creativity topic, upgraded the creativity developmentalframework, revised it critically for important intellectual content,gave final approval of the version to be published and agreed withall aspects of the work.






ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by the Foundation for Scienceand Technology (FCT, Portugal) and European Social Fund(ESF), through a Doctoral grant endorsed to the first author

(SFRH/BD/91836/2012) under the Human Potential OperatingProgram (POPH). Project Symbiotic technology for societalefficiency gains: Deus ex Machina (DEM), NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000026, co-financed by Fundo Europeu deDesenvolvimento Regional (FEDER) by NORTE 2020.

REFERENCES

Abernethy, B., Baker, J., and Côté, J. (2005). Transfer of pattern recall skills maycontribute to the development of sport expertise. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 19,705–718. doi: 10.1002/acp.1102

Abraham, A., Saiz, J., Mckeown, S., Morgan, G., Muir, B., North, J., et al. (2014).“Planning your coaching: A focus on youth participant development,” inPractical Sport Coaching, ed C. Nash (Abingdon: Routledge), 16–53.

Alfonso-Benlliure, V., Meléndez, J., and García-Ballesteros, M. (2013). Evaluationof a creativity intervention program for preschoolers. Think. Skills Creativity10, 112–120. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2013.07.005

Bandura, A. (1969). “Social-learning theory of identificatory processes,” inHandbook of Socialization Theory and Research, ed D. Goslin (Chicago, IL: C.R. McNally Ed.), 213–262.

Beaty, R. (2015). The neuroscience of musical improvisation. Neurosci. Biobehav.Rev. 51, 108–117. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.01.004

Bernstein, A. (1967). The Co-ordination and Regulation of Movements. London:Pergamon Press.

Boden, M. A. (1996). Dimensions of Creativity. Cambridge: MIT Press.Bowers,M., Green, C., Hemme, F., and Chalip, L. (2014). Assessing the relationship

between youth sport participation settings and creativity in adulthood. Creat.Res. J. 26, 314–327. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2014.929420

Broadbent, D. P., Causer, J., Williams, A. M., and Ford, P. R. (2015). Perceptual-cognitive skill training and its transfer to expert performance in the field: Futureresearch directions. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 15, 322–331. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2014.957727

Bryant, E. S., Duncan, M. J., and Birch, S. L. (2013). Fundamental movementskills and weight status in British primary school children. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 14,730–736. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2013.870232

Butler, J. (2014). TGfU – Would you know it if you saw it? Benchmarks fromthe tactic knowledge of the founders. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 20, 465–488. doi:10.1177/1356336x14534356

Byernes, J., and Dunbar, K. (2014). The nature and development of critical-analyticthinking. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 26, 477–493. doi: 10.1007/s10648-014-9284-0

Chae, S., Seo, Y., and Lee, K. (2015). Effects of task complexity on individualcreativity through knowledge interaction: a comparison of temporary andpermanent teams. Comput. Hum. Behav. 42, 138–148. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.015

Chow, J., Davids, K., Button, C., and Renshaw, I. (2015). Nonlinear Pedagogy in

Skill Acquisition: An Introduction. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.Chow, J., Davids, K., Button, C., Shuttleworth, R., Renshaw, I., and Araújo, D.

(2007). The role of nonlinear pedagogy in physical education. Rev. Educ. Res.77, 251–278. doi: 10.3102/003465430305615

Chow, J., Davids, K., Hristovski, R., Araújo, D., and Passos, P. (2011). Nonlinearpedagogy: learning design for self-organizing neurobiological systems. NewIdeas Psychol. 29, 189–200. doi: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2010.10.001

Chow, J. (2013). Nonlinear learning underpinning pedagogy: evidence, challenges,and implications. Quest 65, 469–484. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2013.807746

Claxton, A., Pannells, T., and Rhoads, P. (2005). Developmental trends in thecreativity of school-age children. Creat. Res. J. 17, 327–335. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1704_4

Collins, D., and MacNamara, A. (2011). Comments on ‘expert performance insport and the dynamics of talent development’. Sports Med. 41, 609–610. doi:10.2165/11593020-000000000-00000

Collins, D., MacNamara, Á., and McCarthy, N. (2016). Super champions,champions and almosts: important differences and commonalities on the rockyroad. Front. Psychol. 6:2009. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02009

Colzato, L. S., Szapora, A., Pannekoek, J. N., and Hommel, B. (2013). The impact ofphysical exercise on convergent and divergent thinking. Front. Hum. Neurosci.

7:824. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00824

Côté, J., Baker, J., and Abernethy, B. (2003). From play to practice: “Adevelopmental framework for the acquisition of expertise in team sport,” inRecent Advances in Research on Sport Expertise, eds J. Starkes and K. A. Ericsson(Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics), 89–114.

Côté, J., and Ericsson, K. (2015). “Diversification and deliberate play during thesampling years,” in Routledge Handbook of Sport Expertise, eds J. Baker and D.Farrow (Abingdon: Routledge), 305–316.

Côté, J., Lidor, R., and Hackfort, D. (2009). ISSP position stand: to sample or tospecialize? Seven postulates about youth sport activities that lead to continuedparticipation and elite performance. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 9, 7–17. doi:10.1177/1941738112464626

Côté, J., and Vierimaa, M. (2014). The developmental model of sport participation:15 years after its first conceptualization. Sci. Sports 29, S63–S69. doi:10.1016/j.scispo.2014.08.133

Coutinho, P., Mesquita, I., and Fonseca, A. (2016). Talent development in sport: acritical review of pathways to expert performance. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 11,279–293. doi: 10.1177/1747954116637499

Cramond, B., Matthews-Morgan, J., Bandalos, D., and Zuo, L. (2005). AReport on the 40-Year follow-up of the torrance tests of creative thinking:alive and well in the new millennium. Gifted Child Q. 49, 283–291. doi:10.1177/001698620504900402

Davids, K., Araújo, D., Correia, V., and Vilar, L. (2013). How small-sided andconditioned games enhance acquisition of movement and decision-makingskills. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 41, 154–161. doi: 10.1097/JES.0b013e318292f3ec

Davids, K., Glazier, P., Araújo, D., and Bartlett, R. (2003). Movement systems asdynamical systems: the functional role of variability and its implications forsports medicine. Sports Med. 33, 245–260. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200333040-00001

Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., and Howe, A. (2013).Creative learning environments in education - A systematic literature review.Think. Skills Creativity 8, 80–91. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.004

Duffy, B. (2006). Supporting Creativity and Imagination in the Early Years. London:Open University Press.

Edwards, W. (2010). Motor Learning and Control: From Theory to Practice.Wadsworth, OH: Cengage Learning.

Ennis, D. (2015). Knowledge, transfer, and innovation in physical literacycurricula. J. Sport Health Sci. 4, 119–124. doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2015.03.001

Ericsson, A., and Lehmann, C. (1999). “Expertise,” in Encyclopedia of Creativity,

eds M. A. Runco and S. R. Pritzker (San Diego, CA: Academic Press), 695–707.Ericsson, A. (2014). The Road to Excellence: the Acquisition of Expert Performance

in the Arts and Sciences, Sports, and Games. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Fink, A., and Woschnjak, S. (2011). Creativity and personality in professional

dancers. Pers. Individ. Diff. 51, 754–758. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.024Ford, P., De Ste Croix, M., Lloyd, R., Meyers, R., Moosavi, M., Oliver, J., et al.

(2011). The long-term athlete development model: physiological evidence andapplication. J. Sport Sci. 29, 389–402. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2010.536849

Ford, P., Ward, P., Hodges, N., and Williams, M. (2009). The role of deliberatepractice and play in career progression in sport: the early engagementhypothesis. High Ability Stud. 20, 65–75. doi: 10.1080/13598130902860721

Frank, T. D., Michelbrink, M., Beckmann, H., and Schöllhorn, W. I. (2008).A quantitative dynamical systems approach to differential learning: self-organization principle and order parameter equations. Biol. Cybern. 98, 19–31.doi: 10.1007/s00422-007-0193-x

Furley, P., and Memmert, D. (2015). Creativity and working memory capacityin sports: working memory capacity is not a limiting factor in creativedecision making amongst skilled performers. Front. Psychol. 6:115. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00115

Fürst, G., Ghisletta, P., and Lubart, T. (2016). Toward an integrative model ofcreativity and personality: theoretical suggestions and preliminary empiricaltesting. J. Creat. Behav. 50, 87–108. doi: 10.1002/jocb.71






Gallahue, D., and Donnelly, F. (2007). Development of physical education for all

children (4th Edn.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Gallahue, D. L., Ozmun, J. C., and Goodway, J. (2011). Understanding Motor

Development: Infants, Children, Adolescents, Adults (7 th Edn.). New York, NY:McGraw-Hill.

Giblin, S., Collins, D., and Button, C. (2014). Physical literacy: importance,assessment and future directions. Sports Med. 44, 1177–1184. doi:10.1007/s40279-014-0205-7

Glaveanu, V. (2011). Children and creativity: a most (un)likely pair? Think. SkillsCreat. 6, 122–131. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2011.03.002

Gordon, D. (2014). The ecology of collective behavior. PLoS Biol. 12:e1001805. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001805

Greco, P., Memmert, D., and Morales, J. C. (2010). The effect of deliberate play ontactical performance in basketball. Percept. Motor Skills 110(3 Pt 1), 849–856.doi: 10.2466/pms.110.3.849-856

Halouani, J., Chtourou, H., Gabbett, T., Chaouachi, A., and Chamari, K. (2014).Small-sided games in team sports training: a brief review. J. Strength Cond. Res.28, 3594–3618. doi: 10.1519/jsc.0000000000000564

Hambrick, D., Oswald, F., Altmann, E., Meinz, E., Gobet, F., and Campitelli, G.(2014). Deliberate practice: is that all it takes to become an expert? Intelligence45, 34–45. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2013.04.001

Harbourne, R. T., and Stergiou, N. (2009). Movement variability and the use ofnonlinear tools: principles to guide physical therapist practice. Phys. Ther. 89,267–282. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20080130

Harvey, S., and Jarrett, K. (2014). A review of the game-centred approaches toteaching and coaching literature since 2006. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagogy 19,278–300. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2012.754005

Hendry and Hoges, (2013). “Getting on the right track: Athllete-centred practicefor expert performance,” inRoutledge Handbook of Sports Performance Analysis,eds T. McGarry, P. O’Donoghue, and J. Sampaio (New York, NY: Routledge),5–20.

Hill-Haas, S. V., Dawson, B., Impellizzeri, F. M., and Coutts, A. J. (2011).Physiology of small-sided games training in football. Sports Med. 41, 199–220.doi: 10.2165/11539740-000000000-00000

Hopsicker, P. (2011). In search of the ‘sporting genius’: exploring the benchmarksto creative behavior in sporting activity. J. Philos. Sport 38, 113–127. doi:10.1080/00948705.2011.9714553

Hornig, M., Aust, F., and Güllich, A. (2016). Practice and play in the developmentof German top-level professional football players. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 16, 96–105.doi: 10.1080/17461391.2014.982204

Hristovski, R., Davids, K., Araujo, D., and Passos, P. (2011). Constraints-induced emergence of functional novelty in complex neurobiologicalsystems: a basis for creativity in sport. Nonlin. Dyn. Psychol. Life Sci. 15,175–206.

Hristovski, R., Davids, K., Passos, P., and Araújo, D. (2012). Sport performance as adomain of creative problem solving for self organizing performer-environmentsystems.Open Sports Sci. J. 5(Suppl. 1–M4), 26–35. doi: 10.2174/1875399X01205010026

Jaakkola, T., Yli-Piipari, S., Huotari, P., Watt, A., and Liukkonen, J. (2016).Fundamental movement skills and physical fitness as predictors of physicalactivity: a 6-year follow-up study. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports. 26, 74–81. doi:10.1111/sms.12407

Kalaja, S., Jaakkola, T., Liukkonen, J., and Digelidis, N. (2011). Development ofjunior high school students’ fundamental movement skills and physical activityin a naturalistic physical education setting. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagogy 17,411–428. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2011.603124

Kaufman, J., and Baer, J. (2012). Beyond new and appropriate: who decides what iscreative? Creat. Res. J. 24, 83–91. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2012.649237

Kim, K. (2011). The creativity crisis: the decrease in creative thinking scoreson the torrance tests of creative thinking. Creat. Res. J. 23, 285–295. doi:10.1080/10400419.2011.627805

Kleinmintz, O., Goldstein, P., Mayseless, N., Abecasis, D., and Shamay-Tsoory, S. (2014). Expertise in musical improvisation and creativity: themediation of idea evaluation. PLoS ONE 9:e101568. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0101568

Kreitz, C., Furley, P., Memmert, D., and Simons, D. J. (2015). Inattentionalblindness and individual differences in cognitive abilities. PLoS ONE

10:e0134675. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134675

Lai, S. K., Costigan, S. A., Morgan, P. J., Lubans, D. R., Stodden, D. F., Salmon,J., et al. (2014). Do school-based interventions focusing on physical activity,fitness, or fundamental movement skill competency produce a sustained impactin these outcomes in children and adolescents? A systematic review of follow-up studies. Sports Med. 44, 67–79. doi: 10.1007/s40279-013-0099-9

Lebed, F., and Bar-Eli, M. (2013). Complexity and Control in Team Sports:

Dialectics in Contesting Human Systems. New York, NY: Routledge.Lee,M. C. Y., Chow, J. Y., Komar, J., Tan, C.W. K, and Button, C. (2014). Nonlinear

pedagogy: an effective approach to cater for individual differences in learning asports skill. PLoS ONE 9:e104744. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0104744

Leite, N., Baker, J., and Sampaio, J. (2009). Paths to expertise in portuguese nationalteam athletes. J. Sports Sci. Med. 8, 560–566.

Leite, N., and Sampaio, J. (2010). Early sport envolvement in young portuguesebasketbal players. Percept. Motor Skills 111, 669–680. doi: 10.2466/05.10.PMS.111.6.669-680

Lloyd, R. S., Oliver, J. L., Faigenbaum, A. D., Howard, R., De Ste Croix, M.B., Williams, C. A., et al. (2015). Long-term athletic development - Part1: a pathway for all youth. J. Strength Cond. Res. 29, 1439–1450. doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000000756

Longmuir, P., Boyer, C., Lloyd, M., Yang, Y., Boiarskaia, E., Zhu, W., et al. (2015).The canadian assessment of physical literacy: Methods for children in grades 4to 6 (8 to 12years). BMC Public Health 15:767. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-2106-6

Longmuir, P. E., and Tremblay, M. S. (2016). Top 10 research questions related tophysical literacy. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 87, 28–35. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2016.1124671

Lubans, D. R., Morgan, P. J., Cliff, D. P., Barnett, L. M., and Okely, A. D. (2010).Fundamental movement skills in children and adolescents. Sports Med. 40,1019–1035. doi: 10.2165/11536850-000000000-00000

Ma, H. (2006). A synthetic analysis of the effectiveness of single componentsand packages in creativity training programs. Creat. Res. J. 18, 435–446. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1804_3

Macnamara, Á., Collins, D., and Giblin, S. (2015). Just let them play? Deliberatepreparation as the most appropriate foundation for lifelong physical activity.Front. Psychol. 6:1548. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01548

MacNamara, Á., and Collins, D. (2015). Second chances: investigatingathletes’ experiences of talent transfer. PLoS ONE 10:e0143592. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0143592

Macquet, A. C. (2009). Recognition within the decision-making process: a casestudy of expert volleyball players. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 21, 64–79. doi:10.1080/10413200802575759

Mandigo, J., and Corlett, J. (2010). “Teaching games for understanding of what?TGfU role in the development of physical literacy,” inMore Teaching Games for

Understanding: Moving Globally: Human Kinetics, eds J. Butler and L. Griffin(Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics), 69–78.

Memmert, D., Almond, L., Bunker, D., Butler, J., Fasold, F., Griffin, L., et al. (2015).Top 10 research questions related to teaching games for understanding. Res. Q.Exerc. Sport 86, 347–359. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2015.1087294

Memmert, D., Baker, J., and Bertsch, C. (2010). Play and practice in thedevelopment of sport-specific creativity in team ball sports. High Ability Stud.

21, 3–18. doi: 10.1080/13598139.2010.488083Memmert, D., and Furley, P. (2007). “I spy withmy little eye!”: breadth of attention,

inattentional blindness, and tactical decision making in team sports. J. SportExerc. Psychol. 29, 365–381. doi: 10.1123/jsep.29.3.365

Memmert, D., and Harvey, S. (2010). Identification of non-specific tactical tasksin invasion games. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagogy 15, 287–305. doi: 10.1080/17408980903273121

Memmert, D., and Roth, K. (2007). The effects of non-specific and specificconcepts on tactical creativity in team ball sports. J. Sports Sci. 25, 1423–1432.doi: 10.1080/02640410601129755

Memmert, D. (2006). Developing creative thinking in a gifted sport enrichmentprogram and the crucial role of attention processes. High Ability Stud. 17,101–115. doi: 10.1080/13598130600947176

Memmert, D. (2009). Pay attention! A review of visual attentional expertisein sport. Int. Rev. Sport Exerc. Psycholgy 2, 119–138. doi: 10.1080/17509840802641372

Memmert, D. (2011). Creativity, expertise, and attention: exploring theirdevelopment and their relationships. J. Sports Sci. 29, 93–102. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2010.528014






Memmert, D. (2013). “Tactical creativity,” in Routledge Handbook of Sports

Performance Analysis, eds T. McGarry, P. O’Donoghue, and J. Sampaio(Abingdon: Routledge), 297–308.

Memmert, D. (2015a). “Development of tactical creativity in sports,” in Routledge

Handbook of Sport Expertise, eds J. Baker and D. Farrow (Abingdon:Routledge), 363–372.

Memmert, D. (2015b). Teaching Tactical Creativity in Sport: Research and Practice.New York, NY: Routledge.

Mitchell, S., Oslin, J., and Griffin, L. (2013). Teaching Sport Concepts and

Skills: A Tactical Games Approach for Ages 7 to 18. Champaign, IL: HumanKinetics.

Moesch, K., Elbe, A. M., Hauge, M. L., and Wikman, J. M. (2011). Latespecialization: the key to success in centimeters, grams, or seconds (cgs)sports. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 21, e282–290. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01280.x

Moston, M., and Ashworth, S. (1990). The Spectrum of Teaching Styles: From

Command to Discovery. New York, NY: Longman.Newell, M. (1985). “Coordination, control and skill,” in Differing Perspectives in

Motor Learning, Memory, and Control, eds D. Goodman, I. Franks, and R.Wilberg (Amsterdan: North-Holland), 295–317.

Onarheim, B., and Friis-Olivarius, M. (2013). Applying the neuroscience ofcreativity to creativity training. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7:656. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00656

Pesce, C., Masci, I., Marchetti, R., Vazou, S., Sääkslahti, A., and Tomporowski, P.D. (2016). Deliberate play and preparation jointly benefit motor and cognitivedevelopment: mediated and moderated effects. Front. Psychol. 7:349. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00349

Piffer, D. (2012). Can creativity be measured? An attempt to clarify the notion

of creativity and general directions for future research. Think. Skills Creat. 7,258–264. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2012.04.009

Rees, T., Hardy, L., Güllich, A., Abernethy, B., Côté, J., Woodman, T., et al. (2016).The great British medalists project: a review of current knowledge on thedevelopment of the world’s best sporting talent. Sports Med. 46, 1041–1058. doi:10.1007/s40279-016-0476-2

Renshaw, I., Araújo, D., Button, C., Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., and Moy, B. (2015).Why the constraints-led approach is not teaching games for understanding: aclarification. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagogy 21, 459–480. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2015.1095870

Richards, P., Collins, D., and Mascarenhas, D. (2012). Developing rapid high-pressure team decision-making skills. The integration of slow deliberatereflective learning within the competitive performance environment: a casestudy of elite netball. Reflective Pract. 13, 407–424. doi: 10.1080/14623943.2012.670111

Runco, M., and Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator ofcreative potential. Creat. Res. J. 24, 66–75. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2012.652929

Runco, M., and Jaeger, G. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creat. Res.J. 24, 92–96. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2012.650092

Runco, M. (2014). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, Development, and

Practice. London: Elsevier Science.

Sawyer, R. K. (2000). Improvisation and the creative process: Dewey, Collingwood,and the aesthetics of spontaneity. J. Aesthetics Art Criticism 58, 149–161. doi:10.2307/432094

Schöllhorn, W. I., Beckmann, H., Michelbrink, M., Trockel, M., Sechelmann,M., and Davids, K. (2006). Does noise provide a basis for the unificationof motor learning theories? Int. J. Sport Psychol. 37, 186–206. doi:10.1177/0018720815602575

Schöllhorn, W. I., Hegen, P., and Davids, K. (2012). The nonlinear nature oflearning - A differential learning approach. Open Sports Sci. J. 5, 100–112. doi:10.2174/1875399X01205010100

Schöllhorn, W. I., Mayer-Kress, G., Newell, K. M., and Michelbrink, M.(2009). Time scales of adaptive behavior and motor learning in thepresence of stochastic perturbations. Hum. Mov. Sci. 28, 319–333. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2008.10.005

Seefeldt, V. (1980). “Developmental motor patterns: implications for elementaryschool physical education,” in Psychology of Motor Behavior and Sport, eds C.Nadeau, W. Holliwell, K. Newell, and G. Roberts (Champaign, IL: HumanKinetics), 314–323.

Sicilia-Camacho, A., and Brown, D. (2008). Revisiting the paradigm shift fromthe versus to the non-versus notion of Mosston’s Spectrum of teaching stylesin physical education pedagogy: a critical pedagogical perspective. Phys. Educ.Sport Pedagogy, 13, 85–108. doi: 10.1080/17408980701345626

Smith, W. (2014). Fundamental movement skills and fundamental games skills arecomplementary pairs and should be taught in complementary ways at all stagesof skill development. Sport Educ. Soc. 21, 431–442. doi: 10.1080/13573322.2014.927757

Sternberg, R., and Lubart, T. (1999). The concept of creativity: prospects andparadigms. Handbook Creat. 1, 3–15.

Tan, C., Chow, J., and Davids, K. (2012). ‘How does TGfU work?’: examining therelationship between learning design in TGfU and a nonlinear pedagogy. Phys.Educ. Sport Pedagogy 17, 331–348. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2011.582486

Travassos, B., Duarte, R., Vilar, L., Davids, K., and Araújo, D. (2012). Practice taskdesign in team sports: representativeness enhanced by increasing opportunitiesfor action. J. Sports Sci. 30, 1447–1454. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2012.712716

Vilar, L., Araújo, D., Davids, K., and Button, C. (2012). The role of ecologicaldynamics in analysing performance in team sports. Sports Med. 42, 1–10. doi:10.2165/11596520-000000000-00000

Whitehead, M. (2010). Physical literacy: Throughout the Lifecourse. New York, NY:Taylor & Francis.

Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research wasconducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that couldbe construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Copyright © 2016 Santos, Memmert, Sampaio and Leite. This is an open-access

article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC

BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the

original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this

journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution

or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/








the spawns of creative behavior in team sports: a ...€¦ · 2. institute of cognitive and...

Documents